Why, even after this discussion and article viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10313&p=70981 does Victoria still insist that neutering can decrease behavior problems? I can see her making the case that this young guy wanting to breed his reactive and unstable dog would have been dangerous. But she emphatically told him that neutering Casper would decrease the behavior problems.

This is one of very few things I can't get on board with with regard to Victoria's philosophies.

I'm on the fence and won't really make a decision either way quite. To me, there are not enough studies done on the issue on either side. A good number of studies done are done on the effects of the hormones in the dog or done more as surveys (from what I've personally looked into). Hormones in general, human, animal, etc, are not well predicted nor the best understood. To me more comprehensive studies should be done, because not all owners do the same thing, not all glans produce the same amount, and not all removal procedures/timings produce the same result.

We do mess with hormones in people but not usually through removing glands/organs. Actually removing such organs in people is generally used for reducing cancer and then the homonal effects afterwards (the lack of hormones) is treated because people like having their estrogen or testosterone (and whatever other hormones come from that area...) - Sorry it's been awhile since my last biology lecture(3 years).

Right now, I don't think mass nueturing or spaying should be justified due to the small percent of dogs that may have too much hormones causing them to be slightly more (whatever), but as a population control especially for strays, or dogs not well taken care of, I rather see it than mass euthnizing. I do think, just as there are people will different hormone/chemical/etc levels, there are dogs with different levels. People being different are tolerated else we go to therapy, get medication (especially if it's dangerous), and whatever fits our interests, dogs aren't going to do any of that. Actually if you have certain chemicals going through your system (not talking just hormones any more, but more so brain chemistry) it's really hard to have 'control' or 'be a part of society'... however again, brain chemicals, body chemicals, hormones, etc, we don't know that much about them at all... I say 50 years we might have a better idea, maybe longer...

Ok, before I get myself into trouble, I'm just gunna quote Albert Einstein and say... "The more I learn, The more I realize I do not know"

- Anna

"Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole."
~ Roger A. Caras

Okay, first of all - that "article" is over three years old. Studies have continued since then and have shown that being neutered DOES modify testosterone-driven behavior.

Have you read Victoria's book(s)? Do you honestly think that she would just throw something out there if she hadn't done her research? She IS a professional you know. But wait, those books are a couple of years old too - so how about this;

Why do you think the trainers wouldn't accept Casper unless he'd been neutered? They explained it very clearly. These are people that are EDUCATED and have SIGNIFICANT reasons not to accept an un-neutered dog into that type of training.

And did you know the CDC has stated that approximately 85% of all unprovoked dog bites are by unaltered males? Just an fyi.

You can also check with the ASPCA regarding spaying/neutering. Or are you going to say they are ill-informed as well?

In regards to the earlier forum regarding neutering - it is a thesis that is linked, and a thesis is not a statement of fact. A thesis is not an assertion that no reasonable person would accept based on the evidence at hand. Nor is a thesis something that most reasonable people would conclude based on the evidence at hand. A thesis is an interpretation that explains the data but that could be reasonably disputed by others who have also studied the data.

Now, it's one thing to disagree with someone's opinion - but it's something else when you're basically saying they don't know what they're talking about. What is your education about it besides a college paper, or article you found on the internet? I know I posted an article too - but I'm not the one disagreeing with Victoria's, and countless other professionals', advice regarding spaying/neutering.

And by the way - when I asked why is the same thing posted in different places - I mean that it's unnecessary to repeat yourself over and over again on the same issue. THIS issue, being the advice from this episode. The issue here isn't neutering - it's that you disagree with Victoria's advice.

wickedhippy wrote:Okay, first of all - that "article" is over three years old. Studies have continued since then and have shown that being neutered DOES modify testosterone-driven behavior.

I know from experience that neutering only helps problems that are hormone related, most problems that dogs have are not hormone related but are fear, neutering a fearful dog makes the fear a lot worse. That link doesn't show the other side so to me it isn't worth the paper it was printed on.

Have you read Victoria's book(s)? Do you honestly think that she would just throw something out there if she hadn't done her research? She IS a professional you know. But wait, those books are a couple of years old too - so how about this;

Why do you think the trainers wouldn't accept Casper unless he'd been neutered? They explained it very clearly. These are people that are EDUCATED and have SIGNIFICANT reasons not to accept an un-neutered dog into that type of training.

A good trainer doesn't need dogs to be neutered to train them, many trainers are not educated and haven't a clue about how dogs learn or how to train by encouraging dogs to learn by setting them up to succeed. How does this trainer teach a dog to walk on a lead without pulling?

And did you know the CDC has stated that approximately 85% of all unprovoked dog bites are by unaltered males? Just an fyi.

Dogs don't bite for no reason, they have a reason we don't know what it is. Many owners think that dogs should let young children pull their ears, poke up their noses or in their eyes, etc then wonder why the dog bites, the dog will have given a lot of warnings before getting to this stage and was probably punished for them.

You can also check with the ASPCA regarding spaying/neutering. Or are you going to say they are ill-informed as well?

If it is like our RSPCA then yes, they are ill-informed.

In regards to the earlier forum regarding neutering - it is a thesis that is linked, and a thesis is not a statement of fact. A thesis is not an assertion that no reasonable person would accept based on the evidence at hand. Nor is a thesis something that most reasonable people would conclude based on the evidence at hand. A thesis is an interpretation that explains the data but that could be reasonably disputed by others who have also studied the data.

You mean like the link you put up?

Now, it's one thing to disagree with someone's opinion - but it's something else when you're basically saying they don't know what they're talking about. What is your education about it besides a college paper, or article you found on the internet? I know I posted an article too - but I'm not the one disagreeing with Victoria's, and countless other professionals', advice regarding spaying/neutering.

WOW why are you so insulting to the members on here because you don't agree with what is said? What is your education, what is your knowledge of dogs, how many dogs have you trained successfully.

And by the way - when I asked why is the same thing posted in different places - I mean that it's unnecessary to repeat yourself over and over again on the same issue. THIS issue, being the advice from this episode. The issue here isn't neutering - it's that you disagree with Victoria's advice.

Silly me, I thought this was Victoria Stillwell's forum not yours,

Who are you to say what is to be put on this forum or not? That is for the Boardhost and the Moderator to do not yours. I find you very nasty, you are attacking people who have a lot more knowledge than you have, you are using warped research to prove your point and one that doesn't give both sides so is irelevant.

Last edited by Mattie on Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

I realize this is a senstive topic, but watch wordings. People are going to disagree even when you have all the "facts"/not-disproven-theories on your side, so when there are theories and studies for both sides, or no studies it makes it much more difficult.

WickedHappy:
It's good to see both sides or at least question from time to time. If there was only one mass voice saying one thing, I would very much question it for then who's checking in on the options of the idea, who's testing it? My favorite examples are EVERYONE thought the world was flat, and EVERYONE thought the earth was the center of the universe... when people started questioning this, they went under house-arrest, they got in to a lot of trouble, and even then it took a long time to get information/proof on how the world was not flat or not the center... Now EVERYONE knows it's round and EVERYONE knows the sun is the center... well... we "know" at this point in time anyway...

wickedhippy wrote:Have you read Victoria's book(s)? Do you honestly think that she would just throw something out there if she hadn't done her research? She IS a professional you know. But wait, those books are a couple of years old too - so how about this;

>>> People do research all the time, research can be outdated within a matter of minutes, heck you could be "outdated" in a second if luck is not quite on your side because you don't know who's doing research on what and theirs may disprove yours. Professionals can disagree, professionals can strongly disagree. They do, all the time... It's all about interpretation, biases, or case-by-case bases. I'm not saying Victoria is biased one way, that's something for her to state - but I am saying generally when there are two sides or more, people either interpret differently to choose, have a clear biases (often by not even considering the other side, or not considering it too much), or go case-by-case to see which situations match up best with what studies/information.

Every set of information has a set of parameters and assumptions that go with it. Ie. Fluid flows down hill... but actually on the surface of whatever its flowing on, fluid does not flow. This is why there's a 'wet' spot wherever the fluid was until it evaporates. (Clean it with water, then the water replaces the fluid on the surface, but you still must wait until it evaporates or is absorbed by a towel.)

Truthfully, I may disagree from time to time, but I trust Victoria's judgement.

wickedhippy wrote:And did you know the CDC has stated that approximately 85% of all unprovoked dog bites are by unaltered males? Just an fyi.

Could you post where you got this from - I tried searching the CDC website and I can't seem to find it... Maybe I'm not putting in the right search words or looking in the correct area (I assumed it would be under dog bite).

wickedhippy wrote:You can also check with the ASPCA regarding spaying/neutering. Or are you going to say they are ill-informed as well?

I'm pretty sure that's more population control. That's why our shelter promotes it (usually for dogs above the age of 2-3 though). I will have to look into the actual reasons ASPCA promotes spaying/neutering, but I'm fairly certain it's population control. We could always just euthanize/kill like we do for other animals (deer), but people generally don't agree with that idea as much since these are pets not just wildlife.

wickedhippy wrote:a thesis is not a statement of fact. A thesis is not an assertion that no reasonable person would accept based on the evidence at hand. Nor is a thesis something that most reasonable people would conclude based on the evidence at hand. A thesis is an interpretation that explains the data but that could be reasonably disputed by others who have also studied the data.

Facts are thesises which have been repeated, and repeated - they are still thesies though we just start stating them as "facts" more so because theesies is a tricky word. But usually they are thesises that have been retested multiple times (not so sure on your fact 85% though). Generally there are usually from multiple people interpreting data, and they also can be "reasonably" be disputed by others who have studied the data. Newton's law of universal gravitation has been proven wrong by Einstein (and others since then), but we still refer to it as a "law" which by the way is generally above a 'fact' by public viewpoint -

The chain goes Hypothesis < Study < Theory < A lot more studies < Fact < More studies/equations/relationships < Law < continuing research/ideas/skeptic... As long as it's not disproven, it continues up that chain through more non-dis-proving data. Though if it's disproven sometimes it keeps it's current state or last used term, ie Newton's "law" of universal gravitation... And even if it is not disproven, there's still all the parameters and assumptions it was under that make it suspetable to having exceptions (fluid flows down hill), or only being valid in specific situations.

Anyway, I'm just trying to state it's probably a case by case basis - or at least that's what I'm assuming. At this point, there really aren't that many multiple studies done, they are all sightly different so there's no repeatability. (And a good number of these "Facts" come from surveys, which have a whole lot of parameters, ie the dog was unnuetured at the time of the bite and maybe a puppy... etc... which makes variables harder to control to allow for repeatability). Plus again, it's with hormones and body chemicals, and those aren't even all that consistent in themselves from person to person, animal to animal, individual to individual...

I admit I don't have that much knowledge on the issue, so I can't really say one way or another, but I can question the "science" and where the data comes from, because I do have a lot of knowledge and experience in understand scientific thinking/process as well as how it tends to affect or become affected by the "general public" (I don't like this term, but it's the one commonly used, sorry).

- Anna

"Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole."
~ Roger A. Caras

Well for the record, I don't accept Victoria's advice blindly because I'm not in an I Love Victoria fan club, sorry.

I admire Victoria and I think she is wonderful and vital for dogs and their owners. But I don't agree with everything she says. You don't know me, all right? Yes I have read one of her books (not "Fat Dog Slim" as I don't need it). I've also read McConnell, Pryor, Donaldson, Dunbar, etc., etc. I have a list of authors of fearful dog books or positive training and behavior and read their books and their blogs. Victoria's "How to have a perfect pet" book has a section about how you shouldn't let a dog sit in a higher spot than you, eg on the couch while you're on the floor. Disagree. I've also seen every episode, US and UK, and there's plenty that I've seen in past seasons that not only do I disagree with but also that she herself doesn't do anymore.

She trains loose leash walking by turning the other way when the dog pulls. Disagree. I like to turn as soon as the dog goes past my knee so he never gets a chance to pull. And guess what, I learned that right here on her forum, thanks to Mattie.

As to your provoked bites statistic...ignorant. Most dog bites are very much provoked, but most average dog owners don't know how to read the dogs' body language nor realize that they are likely displaying behaviors that will escalate to a bite. ASPCA also tests for food aggression by putting a fake hand in a dog's dish to provoke a reaction. Ridiculous.

I posted that comment about neutering because we here have been discussing this neutering issue for years. You've been here a few months, so for you to demand to know why an article is "all over the forum" is a little obnoxious.

Don't talk to me with your "Okay, first of all" and your "Just an fyi" like I'm ignorant. You don't know me or my experience.

(Apologies to the mods and other forum members for my tone.)

Last edited by Noobs on Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

Noobs wrote:Well for the record, I don't accept Victoria's advice blindly because I'm not in an I Love Victoria fan club, sorry.

Don't talk to me with your "Okay, first of all" and your "Just an fyi" like I'm ignorant. You don't know me or my experience.

I am a website designer - that's just a site I've designed. You don't know me either.

And I don't think anyone is ignorant - but how is it that everyone else can attack "ME", when I'm just stating the facts that I believe?? I don't accept things blindly, I just read other things than you obviously.

I certainlly didn't post those things to attack anyone - just posting the "other" side of the opinion. Being new to the forum doesn't mean I don't have a say in things like you do - I thought that's what this forum was about, to share ideas and/or "facts".

And I realize that Victoria has changed some of her methods through-out the years - however, this is a topic she obviously feels strongly about, and that is why it's still being discussed I would imagine.

Last edited by wickedhippy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

wickedhippy wrote:
And I don't think anyone is ignorant - but how is it that everyone else can attack "ME", when I'm just stating the facts that I believe?? I don't accept things blindly, I just read other things than you obviously.

I certainlly didn't post those things to attack anyone - just posting the "other" side of the opinion.

Wickedhippy, that is how your posts are coming across, they are aggressive and attacking and in some cases insulting.